Smith v. Conetta CA2/3
B327183
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Robert L. Townsend established an irrevocable life insurance trust in 1990, expressly prohibiting future amendments without beneficiary or court approval.
- In 2003 and 2007, Townsend and successor trustee Conetta executed amendments altering the distribution scheme without all beneficiaries’ consent or a court order.
- Townsend died in 2018. Conetta, as trustee, sent Smith (a beneficiary) notification of Townsend's death, trust existence, and Smith's share, along with a statutory notice referencing a 120-day period to contest the trust.
- Smith filed a petition 121 days after receiving the notification, seeking to invalidate the amendments, claiming lack of required consent and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The probate court granted summary judgment against Smith, finding the petition time-barred by Probate Code §16061.8’s 120-day limitation, prompting Smith’s appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §16061.8's 120-day limitation apply to contests of amendments to an irrevocable trust following settlor’s death? | Smith argued it should not apply; amendments to an irrevocable trust require different procedures, and notification was not statutorily required here. | Conetta argued the 120-day limit always applies once statutory notification is served, even if the trust was irrevocable from inception. | The court held §16061.8 did not apply, as its purpose and statutory framework intended it to apply only when a revocable trust becomes irrevocable at settlor’s death. |
| Was notification triggering the statute timely and proper under Probate Code? | Smith argued notification was not statutorily required or complete, and he did not receive all trust terms timely. | Conetta maintained all notices and trust documents, including amendments, were properly mailed and served. | Court found notification was not required by §16061.7 because the trust was already irrevocable, so no triggering event occurred. |
| Did the probate court err in granting summary judgment for untimeliness? | Smith asserted his contest was timely since the statutory timebar did not apply. | Conetta claimed the statutory timebar precluded Smith’s action. | Judgment reversed; Smith's action was not time-barred under the proper statutory interpretation. |
| Is the recent legislative clarification to §16061.8 relevant? | Smith cited the 2022 amendment as clarifying legislative intent that the 120-day limit applies only to revocable trusts becoming irrevocable. | Conetta argued the amendment should not be applied retroactively. | Court relied on legislative history to interpret the prior law as intending the 120-day rule to apply only when a revocable trust becomes irrevocable, aligning with the new amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilar v. Aguilar, 168 Cal.App.4th 35 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (on binding effect and modification requirements for irrevocable trusts)
- Empire Properties v. County of Los Angeles, 44 Cal.App.4th 781 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (distinction between interests in revocable and irrevocable trusts)
- Estate of Giraldin, 55 Cal.4th 1058 (Cal. 2012) (beneficiary's rights in revocable vs. irrevocable trusts)
- Babbitt v. Superior Court, 246 Cal.App.4th 1135 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (notice and modification of revocable vs. irrevocable trusts)
- Bridgeman v. Allen, 219 Cal.App.4th 288 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (standing and timing for contesting trust amendments)